Station 1

Thomas Hobbes“An Absolute Ruler Is Necessary”

Summary

Thomas Hobbes was a 17th century English philosopher. In 1651 Hobbes published a book on government

entitled Leviathan. Hobbes argued in his book that the best government was one in which the ruler had

absolute power. According to Hobbes, people are naturally selfish and before there was any government or

any laws people lived violent lives that were “nasty, brutish, and short” because they were constantly in

competition with each other. Hobbes thought that at some point in the distant past people agreed to give up

their freedom to a ruler to gain order and safety. Hobbes called this agreement a social contract between the

ruler and the ruled. Under the agreement, people now had no right to disobey the ruler or rebel even if he

ruled poorly. Without the absolute power of the ruler to keep order, Hobbes believed that people would

return to a state where they would constantly fight among themselves. For Thomas Hobbes, order in a society

was more important than freedom.

“An Introduction to Thomas Hobbes’s

Leviathan- A Macat Political Analysis”

Station 1

SELECTIONS FROM THE LEVIATHANThomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

(Primary Source)

Human Equality:Nature has made men so equal, in the faculties of the body and mind; as that though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man and man, is not so considerable. . .

For such is the nature of men, that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent, or more learned; yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves. . . .

The State of Nature: From this equality of ability, arises equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies. . . .

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man. For war consists not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known.

In such condition there is no place for industry [meaning productive labor, not industry in modern sense of factories], because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building . . . no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

According to Hobbes, are men equal?

Do men see themselves as equals or are they self-

centered?

Why do men become

enemies?

Man’s natural state without law

to keep them in line is a

state of______.

What is society like without law and order?

Awe: noun 1. an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, etc., produced by that which is grand, sublime, extremely powerful, or the like: in awe of God; in awe of great political figures.

Station 2

John Locke“People Have Basic Rights”

John Locke was an Englishman born in 1632. In 1690 nearly forty years after the appearance of

Hobbes’ book, John Locke published a book that challenged Hobbes’ ideas. His book was entitled Two

Treatises on Government. Like Hobbes, Locke thought that the purpose of government was to keep order in a

society. Locke also agreed that government was a contract between the ruler and those ruled. Locke,

however, thought that people did not give up all their freedom or rights when they agreed to be governed.

Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that people were basically reasonable. Given the chance, Locke thought,

people would cooperate and act in an orderly manner. One of Locke’s most influential ideas was that people

were born with three basic rights. People, said John Locke, had a right to life, liberty, and property. It was the

duty of government, Locke believed, to protect these rights. He argued that a ruler should only stay in power

as long as he had the agreement of the people. He called this agreement “consent of the governed.”

According to Locke, people had a right to rebel against and replace any government that did not protect their

basic rights.

“An Introduction to John Locke’s Two Treatises on

Government- A Macat Political Analysis”

Station 2

SELECTIONS FROM TWO TREATESIS OF GOVERNMENTJohn Locke (1632-1704)

(Primary Source)

The State of NatureTo understand political power, we must consider the condition in which nature puts all men. It is a state of perfect freedom to do as they wish and dispose of themselves and their possessions as they think fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature. They need not ask permission or the consent of any other man.

The state of nature is also a state of equality. No one has more power or authority than another. Since all human beings have the same advantages and the use of the same skills, they should be equal to each other. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it. Reason is the law. It teaches that all men are equal and independent, and that no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, or possessions. All men are made by one all-powerful and wise Maker. They are all servants of one Master who sent them into the world to do His business. He has put men naturally into a state of independence, and they remain in it until they choose to become members of a political society.

The Role of GovernmentIf a man in the state of nature is free, if he is absolute lord of his own person and possessions, why will he give up his freedom? Why will he put himself under the control of any person or institution? The obvious answer is that the rights in the state of nature are constantly exposed to the attacks of others. Since every man is equal and since most men do not concern themselves with equity and justice, the enjoyment of rights in the state of nature is unsafe and insecure. Hence each man joins in society with others to preserve life, liberty, and property.

Since men hope to preserve their property by establishing a government, they will not want that government to destroy this objective. When legislators (lawmakers) try to destroy or take away the property of the people, or try to reduce them to slavery, they put themselves into a state of war with the people who can then refuse to obey the laws. When legislators try to gain or give someone else absolute power over lives, liberties, and property of the people, they abuse the power which the people had put into their hands. It is then the privilege of the people to establish a new legislature to

In a state of nature people

are…

In a state of nature, all reasonable

men respect each other’s

Why do people form

governments?

If the government abuses its

power, what are the people

allowed to do?

provide for their safety and security. These principles also hold true for the executive who helps to make laws and carry them out.

Station 3

Jean Jacques Rousseau“The General Will of the People”

Another important political thinker during this time was Jean Jacques Rousseau. Unlike Montesquieu, Rousseau was

born into poverty. He was an emotional, undisciplined man. Much of his early life was spent wandering from one job to

another. For a time he was a music teacher, though he knew little about teaching music. Then in 1750, this unknown

man became famous when he won an essay contest. His essay, Discourse on the Arts and Sciences, argued that before

civilizations developed people’s behavior had been basically good. People cooperated. There was no crime. Shockingly,

Rousseau proposed that civilized societies caused people to act in ways that were bad. Rousseau used the societies of

Native Americans and others as models of peaceful, cooperative people who lived in a natural, simpler state. He called

these people “noble savages.” Thomas Hobbes had written that people were born basically greedy and selfish.

Civilization, he thought, made people act more responsibly. Rousseau said that people were born good, but that

civilization makes them act badly. It was the desire for property that resulted in inequality, murder, and war. According

to Rousseau, the powerful and wealthy had stolen the land which belonged to everyone and tricked the common people

into making them the rulers with the social contract. “Man is born free,” he wrote, “but everywhere he is in chains.”

Rousseau strongly believed that all people were equal. Whether king or noble, no one, he argued, should have any

special rank or privilege in society.

In 1762 Rousseau published an important on government called entitled The Social Contract. Rousseau’s idea of the

social contract differed from Hobbes and Locke. Rousseau believed that in order to get along people made a contract

with each other and not the ruler. In Rousseau’s opinion, a community of people was held together by shared customs,

values, and traditions. Rousseau called these shared feelings the “general will.” For this reason Rousseau favored the

rule of the majority. The people’s general will would make laws for the “public good” and the people were expected to

follow laws of the general will as long as they remained a member of the state. Rousseau’s writings encouraged both

those that favored democratic governments and nationalism.

“An Introduction to Jean Jacques Rousseau’s The Social Contract- A Macat

Political Analysis”

Station 3

SELECTIONS FROM The Social ContractJean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)

(Primary Source)

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Many a one believes himself

the master of others, and yet he is a greater slave than they.

. . . [T]he social order is a sacred right which serves as a foundation for all

others. . . . now, as men cannot create any new forces, but only combine and

direct those that exist, they have no other means of self-preservation than to

form...a sum of forces which may overcome the resistance, to put them in action

. . . and to make them work in concert. This sum of forces can be produced only

by the combination of man; but the strength and freedom of each man being the

chief instruments of his preservation, how can he pledge them without injuring

himself, and without neglecting the cares which he owes to himself? This

difficulty, applied to my subject, may be expressed in these terms. To find a form

of association which may defend and protect with the whole force of the

community the person and property of all its members and by means of which

each, coalescing with all, may nevertheless obey only himself, and remain as free

as before. Such is the fundamental problem of which the social contract

furnishes the solution...

In short, each giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody. . .

We see from this formula that the act of association contains a reciprocal

engagement between the public and individuals, and that every individual . . . is

engaged in a double relation. . . the social pact . . . includes this engagement . . .

that whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by

the whole body; which means nothing else than that he shall be forced to be

free. . . .

According to Rousseau,

how can man protect himself?

What happens if someone refuses to follow the

general will of

Station 4

Montesquieu“Separate and Balance of Powers”

Baron de Montesquieu, A French aristocrat and lawyer, was also interested in discovering the

basic ideas or principles of good government. He studied the history of the government of ancient

Rome as well as the government in his own time. Seven years before his death he published The Spirit

of Laws.

Montesquieu thought that there was a “spirit” that acted as a foundation for every type of

government. The “spirit” of a dictatorship was fear. The “spirit” of a monarchy was honor. Kings and

nobles thought they were the superior people in their society. The king and other nobles were to be

respected because they were honorable men. They had a special responsibility to use their wealth and

power to govern for the good of the whole society. The “spirit” of a republic was virtue. The strength

of a republican for, of government, he thought, was in electing people of good character who would

serve for the good of the community. Montesquieu believed the spirit of a government was so

important that if it weakened, the government would fail.

Montesquieu admired the English system of government in the 1700’s. He thought that power

in the English government was divided into three branches. One branch, Parliament, made laws. A

second branch, the king, enforced the laws. The third branch, the courts, interpreted the laws or

decided what the laws meant. Montesquieu thought that separating the powers of government would

guard against one part of government from becoming too powerful. Each branch of government acted

to “check and balance” the powers of the other branches. Although Montesquieu was not entirely

correct in how the English government worked, his idea of the importance of a “separation of powers”

and “checks and balances” was used by the individuals who wrote the Constitution of the United States

of America. Montesquieu’s ideas on separating and balancing of powers of government became the

foundation for the government of the United States.

Station 4

SELECTIONS FROM The Spirt of LawsMontesquieu (1689-1755)

(Primary Source)

In every government there are three sorts of power: the legislative; the executive, in respect to things dependent on the law of nations; and the judicial, in regard to matters that depend on the civil law.

By virtue of the first, the prince, or magistrate enacts temporary or perpetual laws, and amends or abrogates those that have been already enacted. By the second, he makes peace or war, sends or receives embassies, establishes the public security, and provides against invasions. By the third, he punishes criminals, or determines the disputes that arise between individuals. The latter we shall call the judiciary power, and the other simply the executive power of the state.

The political liberty of the subject is a tranquility of mind arising from the opinion each person has of his safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite that the government be so constituted as one man needs not be afraid of another.

When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.

Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression. There would be an end of everything, were the same man, or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.

What are the three

branches of government?

How must the government be structured in

order to protect the liberty of the people?

What problems

arise when the legislative and executive

powers are

What problems

arise when judicial power is shared with

another

“The Separation of Powers Easily Explained”

Station 5

Voltaire“Freedom of Speech and Religious Toleration”

Voltaire was the pen name of François-Marie Arouet, born in 1694. He was a philosopher, novelist, and playwright best known for his satire (the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices). Voltaire’s use of satire and harsh critique of French society and the Catholic Church led to his imprisonment and temporary exile from Paris.

Voltaire’s most famous works include the novella Candide in which he ridicules religion, theologians, governments, armies, and philosophers and Treatises on Tolerance. Voltaire’s work often centered around the theme of tolerance as “Tolerance has never provoked a civil war; intolerance has covered the Earth in carnage.” Voltaire advocated for religious toleration for all despite being strongly opposed to organized religion. He was highly critical of Catholicism in particular. He believed that the Bible was an outdated legal and/or moral reference and that it was a work of Man and not a divine gift. As such, he believe in the necessity of the separation of church and state, meaning that government should not operate under the influence of any religion.

Inspired by his time in England, Voltaire also advocated for freedom of speech to combat the strict censorship that existed in France at the time. He is often misquoted for saying, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” The quote actually was written years later by his biographer; nevertheless, it accurately reflects his ideas.

Though Voltaire believed people had the right to basic freedoms, he did not believe the people should rule their own government because the masses were too idiotic to appropriately exercise their general will for the good of all. Instead, Voltaire supported the establishment of a constitutional monarchy- a monarchy in which power is shared between the king and parliament. Voltaire argued that it was in the monarch's rational interest to improve the power and wealth of his subjects and kingdom and that the problems of society could only be fixed by an enlightened monarch with the aid of a parliament of philosophers, such as himself.

Station 5

SELECTIONS FROM Treatise on ToleranceVoltaire (1694-1778)

(Primary Source)

It should not be a great art, a much sought eloquence, to prove that Christians must tolerate each other. I go further: I say that we must regard all men as our brothers. What! My brother Turk? My brother the Chinese? The Jew? Siamese? Yes, no doubt; are we not all children of the same father and creatures of the same God?

But these people despise us; but they treat us as idolaters1! Well! I will tell them they are quite wrong. I think I could be surprised at least the proud obstinacy of iman or talapoin if I told them something like this: "This little globe, which is only a point, rolls in the space and so many other globes; we are lost in the immensity man, about five feet high, is certainly little in creating one of these imperceptible beings,” Said to some of its neighbors in Saudi or Caffraria: "Listen to me, because the God of all these worlds has enlightened me: there are nine hundred million little ants like us on earth, but there my ant that is dear to God; all others are loathe him for all eternity; it will be only happy, and all others will be eternally unhappy."

They then arrest me and ask me what is the fool who said this nonsense I would have to answer them. "This is yourself" I then would try to soften, but this would be difficult.

I would talk to Christians now, and I dare say, for example, a Dominican inquisitor for the faith: "My brother, you know that every province of Italy has its jargon and we do not speak in Venice and Bergamo as in Florence. The Academy of the Crusca set the language; its dictionary is a rule which we must not deviate, and Buonmattei Grammar is an infallible guide to be followed, but do you think that the consul of the Academy could in conscience to cut the tongue to all Venetians and all Bergamasques allegedly persisted in their patois?"

The Inquisitor replied: " There is a great difference; this is the salvation of your soul: it is for your good that the Executive Board of the Inquisition orders that you seize on the testimony of one person, be it infamous and resumption of justice; you have a lawyer to defend you point; the name of your accuser is not only known you; Inquisitor promise you that grace, and then you condemn; it applies to you five different tortures, and then you are or whipped, or sent to the galleys, or burned in ceremony. … This pious practice cannot suffer contradiction. "

I take the liberty to answer: "My brother, may be you are right; I am satisfied that you want me; but could I not be saved without all this?

Why must Christians

show tolerance?

Why does Voltaire compare people to

ants? How do people see

What point is Voltaire

making by comparing religion to

How does the church react to Voltaire’s questioning?

“3 Reasons to Love Voltaire”

1 idolaters- a worshiper of idols (typically used to describe someone worshiping false gods)2 jargon- special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand. Synonym patosis